The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

If you're cool, you know about TED. You might have seen at least one talk by Hans Rosling of Sweden's Karolinska Institute. Dr. Rosling is a gifted presenter, and one of his best talks is about the washing machine and what it means for the world. This morning, I gave a talk to a senior citizens' group at UAB titled "More Immigrants, Please" and based on an article I wrote for the Birmingham News. I asked how many people used to wash clothes by hand, and I heard a lot of very interesting stories about life with the absence of something many of us take for granted. As Rosling points out, washing machines freed up enormous amounts of time and energy that people would have otherwise spent hand-washing their clothes. Running washing machines with fossil fuel-generated electricity means a much slower rate of deforestation--or, as Matt Ridley points out, it might even mean that the world is getting greener (literally) because we have substituted energy-dense fossil fuels for wood.

Beginning at about minute 8, Rosling points out just what the washing machine meant. It meant that people--women especially--had more time to cultivate their minds and the minds of their children. Why? Machines like washing machines freed up time that would have otherwise been spent on back-breaking drudgery. Indeed, the occasional frustrations I have with my computer--load faster, darn you!--strike me as petty and pathetic when I consider what it must have been like to have to haul water and wood to wash clothes. Rosling sounds like a hero from an Ayn Rand novel when he talks about how industrialization freed up people's time and energy for learned and more pleasant pursuits.

Technology represents an obvious increase in our standard of living, but the same is true of trade, as well. As Ridley discusses in his excellent book The Rational Optimist, trade--like new machinery--frees up people's time and energy for other things. Specialization and exchange, according to Ridley, created the free time that allowed us to create new ways of doing things. Adam Smith famously said that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. When we have more extensive markets, we have more extensive trade and a finer division of labor. When we have more trade and a finer division of labor, we are able to produce more output of all kinds: more goods, more services, more leisure.

This is of particular relevance to the immigration debate. The opportunity to trade with immigrants generates higher incomes for the immigrants themselves, but it also gives those who trade with them the opportunity to do other things with their saved time. To use just one example, I could mow my own grass, in which case the world would be better off by one mowed lawn. In a world where I can trade with specialists, I'm able to earn money teaching economics and writing articles, which I can then use to hire someone to mow my lawn. The grass still gets cut, and the world is better off (presumably) by a few economics articles and lectures.

As many economists have pointed out, trade is basically just another technology. We're better off because of it.